United States District Court, D. Colorado
A. BRIMMER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on the Motion to Intervene [Docket
No. 12] filed by Wilderness Workshop. This Court has subject
matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Rule of Civil Procedure 24 governs the intervention of
non-parties. Under Rule 24(a)(2), non-parties may intervene
in a pending lawsuit as of right if: “(1) the
application is timely; (2) the applicants claim an interest
relating to the property or transaction which is the subject
of the action; (3) the applicants' interest may as a
practical matter be impaired or impeded; and (4) the
applicants' interest is not adequately represented by
existing parties.” Western Energy Alliance v.
Zinke, 877 F.3d 1157, 1164 (10th Cir. 2017) (brackets
omitted). “Failure to satisfy even one of
these requirements is sufficient to warrant denial of a
motion to intervene as a matter of right.” Maynard
v. Colo. Supreme Court Office of Attorney Regulation
Counsel, No. 09-cv-02052-WYD-KMT, 2010 WL 2775569, at *3
(D. Colo. July 14, 2010) (quoting Commodity Futures
Trading Comm'n v. Heritage Capital Advisory Servs.,
Ltd., 736 F.2d 384, 386 (7th Cir. 1984)).
non-party is not entitled to intervention as of right, it may
seek permissive intervention under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 24(b). Permissive intervention is allowed if (1)
the motion to intervene is timely and (2) the non-party
“has a claim or defense that shares with the main
action a common question of law or fact.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
24(b)(1)(B). “The decision to grant or deny a motion
for permissive intervention is wholly discretionary with the
district court.” Maynard, 2010 WL 2775569, at
*4 (quoting South Dakota ex rel. Barnett v. U.S.
Dep't of Interior, 317 F.3d 783, 787 (8th Cir.
Workshop seeks to intervene as a defendant as of right or, in
the alternative, by permission. Docket No. 12 at 1.
Wilderness Workshop claims that it has a protectable interest
because reinstating the oil and gas leases at issue
“would harm Wilderness Workshop members'
environmental, recreational, and economic interests in the
Thompson Divide [area of the White River National Forest in
Colorado] and undermine more than a decade of efforts by
Wilderness Workshop to protect the area from oil and gas
development.” Id. at 2. As evidence of its
members' interest, Wilderness Workshop has submitted
declarations from its members explaining their connections to
the Thompson Divide area. See Docket Nos. 12-1,
12-2, 12-3, 12-4; WildEarth Guardians v. Nat'l Park
Serv., 604 F.3d 1192, 1198 (10th Cir. 2010) (“With
respect to Rule 24(a)(2), we have declared it
‘indisputable' that a prospective intervenor's
environmental concern is a legally protectable
interest.” (quoting San Juan County v. United
States, 503 F.3d 1163, 1199 (10th Cir. 2007) (en
does not oppose intervention so long as Wilderness
Workshop's intervention is limited in certain ways listed
in plaintiff's response to the motion to intervene.
Docket No. 13 at 1-2, ¶¶ 1-6. Plaintiff has
indicated that both Wilderness Workshop and the defendants
have agreed to these conditions. Id. at 1. Since
Wilderness Workshop filed its motion to intervene, briefing
has proceeded in accordance with plaintiff's conditions
for unopposed intervention. See Docket Nos. 33, 34.
Court finds that Wilderness Workshop satisfies the four
conditions for intervention as of right pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(2). Wilderness Workshop's motion was
timely, it has shown an interest in whether the oil and gas
leases should be renewed, that interest could be impeded if
the leases are renewed, and its interests are distinct from
those of the defendants named in the complaint. See
Western Energy Alliance, 877 F.3d at 1168 (holding that
“the possibility of divergence of interest need not be
great in order” for the intervenors to show that their
interests are not adequately represented). Therefore, the
Court will grant the motion to intervene. Accordingly, it is
that the Motion to Intervene [Docket No. 12] filed by
Wilderness Workshop is GRANTED.
 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
24(a)(1) allows for intervention as of right where the
non-party “is given an unconditional right to intervene
by a federal statute.” Rule 24(b)(1) also allows for
permissive intervention if a non-party “is given a
conditional right to intervene by a federal statute.”